More to the point can you explain why you think that an organisation capable of building an underground bunker complex that reportedly goes for kms while fighting a non-stop civil war against a professional army for over half a decade can't:

1) place a cylinder in a hole on the roof of the house in question, and 2) somebody to place 34 bodies in that house, without anyone noticing, and 3) put foam on their mouths to make it look like a chemical attack

I imagine they had 'aircraft spotters' at all times...

The WHO report is 'According to reports from Health Cluster partners' ... which is direct evidence that chemicals were ... reported. By sources in Douma working with the opposition. WHO also reports:

Quote

More than 70 people sheltering in basements have reportedly died, with 43 of those deaths related to symptoms consistent with exposure to highly toxic chemicals. Two health facilities were also reportedly affected by these attacks.

These are the same people reported as suffering from dust and not chemicals in Fisk's report.

Either way the WHO report is just reporting the opposition narrative. Fisk is reporting the Fisk narrative that doesn't square with it.

And you are trying to make a case for the opposition being incapable of managing a false flag. I think you're stretching yourself a bit thin though Rob.

What makes you think organising a false flag would be too difficult for them?

There's no logic to your premise.

Where's the logic in the rebels staging a false flag on themselves, just before negotiating a retreat from the city?The alternative explanation was that they retreated in response to a chemical attack by Assad, which makes perfect sense.

Where's the logic in the rebels staging a false flag on themselves, just before negotiating a retreat from the city?The alternative explanation was that they retreated in response to a chemical attack by Assad, which makes perfect sense.

Perfect is it?

Where's the logic in the SAA executing a CW attack on Jaish al-Islam at the moment of victory knowing full well it will compromise their Russian political support as well as invite a US missile attack?

In what fantasy land do you need to reside in for that to make sense? Or do you think it's yet another case of a cartoon 'evil mastermind' daring to expose the weakness of neoliberal chickenhawks?

Or was it the last play of the cards by extremists within the Douma opposition to drag the US coalition into a direct confrontation with Assad? Which is what the US threats amount to, tactically speaking, if you're in the anti-Assad camp please note all you need to do to call in a missile strike on SAA assets is to stage a CW attack. Not rocket science is it?

And Alloush had the nerve to call the FUKUS attack a 'farce'!

So what do you reckon Steve? Psycho Assad daring the west to enter the war against him for no readily apparent strategic reason? Or desperate rebels playing their only remaining card and giving the warhawks in the US admin an excuse to try and drag another weak US president into yet another Middle East disaster?

Where's the logic in the SAA executing a CW attack on Jaish al-Islam at the moment of victory knowing full well it will compromise their Russian political support as well as invite a US missile attack?

Because the Syrian army was nowhere near victory. The rebels in Douma had massive stores of munitions and adequate food. Taking Douma would have taken months of very costly, very deadly block-by-block operations. Meanwhile, the rebels were close enough to Damascus to shell the city.

As I've pointed out, this was entirely analogous to Truman's situation against Japan in the closing days of WW-II. He could either carry on for a year or more, taking island by island, city by city--or use a weapon of mass destruction, and prompt immediate surrender. Same decision in both cases, same outcome.

In both cases, the one using WMDs faced no credible risk of being dragged before a war crimes tribunal. Why wouldn't they act as we know they did?

In both cases, the one using WMDs faced no credible risk of being dragged before a war crimes tribunal. Why wouldn't they act as we know they did?

I think that if Russia had nukes at the time and would have said: We'll nuke you if you nuke Japan, Truman wouldn't have nuked Japan. Truman nukes Japan to 1) show the rest of the world what the USA could do, and 2) simply test the stuff. Besides, Japan couldn't nuke itself to draw in some greater power to punish the US.

It's a weak analogy.

As for this:

Quote

Where's the logic in the rebels staging a false flag on themselves, just before negotiating a retreat from the city?

First of all, is it perhaps possible that the rebels who negotiated the retreat, aren't the same rebels who planted a false flag to get the US to shoot off missiles (assuming it was a false flag)? Perhaps one faction of rebels wanted to negotiate, and another faction said: F*** ***t, let's get the Americans involved again.

Or, maybe, if 'the rebels' are a well-organised monolith after all, the plan was to negotiate, while at the same time provoke the Americans into shooting some missiles at Assad's infrastructure, so they have time to regroup again.

Or maybe there are 'rebels' who work closely together with American intelligence agencies and get paid for this kind of work, because the attack it provoked cost at least 150 million USD for the missiles alone. That's big business. The other rebels wouldn't even have to know about this.

So, there you go, three hypothetical arguments off the top of my head to explain the logic of your argument is weak (why negotiate and do false flag at the same time).

Quote

The alternative explanation was that they retreated in response to a chemical attack by Assad, which makes perfect sense.

Perfect sense? In a following comment you say: "The Syrian army was nowhere near victory. The rebels in Douma had massive stores of munitions and adequate food. Taking Douma would have taken months of very costly, very deadly block-by-block operations. Meanwhile, the rebels were close enough to Damascus to shell the city."

But just drop one or two yellow canisters in which not one rebel soldier dies, and they suddenly run away? It doesn't make sense. If Assad ordered it, it was a really, really stupid move. Somehow I don't think that someone who has held out as long, with both jihadists and the entire West against him, is stupid. So, he's a psychopath, which is entirely possible. But if I were a psychopath and I didn't care about repercussions, I'd drop tens of canisters all at once, to really scare the shit out the jihadists.

But as Rob Dekker says, we can't look into his head. Still, I feel it doesn't make any sense for Assad to do something this stupid.

But who cares, the missiles were fired, and fortunately World War 3 didn't start. On to the next attempt.

I think that if Russia had nukes at the time and would have said: We'll nuke you if you nuke Japan, Truman wouldn't have nuked Japan. Truman nukes Japan to 1) show the rest of the world what the USA could do, and 2) simply test the stuff. Besides, Japan couldn't nuke itself to draw in some greater power to punish the US.

It's a weak analogy.

Weak? You do realize that Russia was also at war with Japan, right?There may have been multiple reasons for Truman's decision, but bringing the war to a swift conclusion was paramount. It was a war crime, but it worked. It worked then and it worked in Douma.

Russia has signaled its interest in keeping a foothold in Syria. Assad knows that a chemical attack can be denied/obfuscated and he won't face serious consequences, because he enjoys Putin's strong support.

Quote

Quote

Where's the logic in the rebels staging a false flag on themselves, just before negotiating a retreat from the city?

First of all, is it perhaps possible that the rebels who negotiated the retreat, aren't the same rebels who planted a false flag to get the US to shoot off missiles (assuming it was a false flag)? Perhaps one faction of rebels wanted to negotiate, and another faction said: F*** ***t, let's get the Americans involved again.

Or, maybe, if 'the rebels' are a well-organised monolith after all, the plan was to negotiate, while at the same time provoke the Americans into shooting some missiles at Assad's infrastructure, so they have time to regroup again.Or maybe there are 'rebels' who work closely together with American intelligence agencies and get paid for this kind of work, because the attack it provoked cost at least 150 million USD for the missiles alone. That's big business. The other rebels wouldn't even have to know about this.

So, there you go, three hypothetical arguments off the top of my head to explain the logic of your argument is weak (why negotiate and do false flag at the same time).

Quote

The alternative explanation was that they retreated in response to a chemical attack by Assad, which makes perfect sense.

Perfect sense? In a following comment you say: "The Syrian army was nowhere near victory. The rebels in Douma had massive stores of munitions and adequate food. Taking Douma would have taken months of very costly, very deadly block-by-block operations. Meanwhile, the rebels were close enough to Damascus to shell the city."

But just drop one or two yellow canisters in which not one rebel soldier dies, and they suddenly run away? It doesn't make sense.

The jihadists of Douma didn't capture the enclave and hold the residents prisoner. They were all targets of Assad, and generally opposed to Assad. Assad bombed Douma indiscriminately. The fighters were, at least in their own minds, surely protecting the people there. So yes, if the people you're trying to defend can no longer be defended, the army retreats to a more strategically useful site. Which they did.

Quote

If Assad ordered it, it was a really, really stupid move. Somehow I don't think that someone who has held out as long, with both jihadists and the entire West against him, is stupid. So, he's a psychopath, which is entirely possible. But if I were a psychopath and I didn't care about repercussions, I'd drop tens of canisters all at once, to really scare the shit out the jihadists.But as Rob Dekker says, we can't look into his head. Still, I feel it doesn't make any sense for Assad to do something this stupid.

Except it plainly wasn't stupid. It worked pretty much as Assad might have envisioned. He gets Douma, the fighters go far away from Damascus. Neither Assad nor Russia face consequences that outweigh these gains. Assad lost a few buildings, with plenty of notice for evacuating people and matériel from them. Putin enjoys plausible deniability, though the operation wouldn't have been carried out without his assent. And a vigorous disinformation campaign reduces any risk of further damage by sowing confusion in the West.

Why else were the OPCW investigators obstructed from their work, when journalists had already been toured through the area?

Do we really think Assad and Putin are more virtuous than Truman? Not that I'd claim Truman to be better, rather that they're probably comparable.

What stronger evidence could we realistically have of a chemical attack on Douma that we don't have now?

Weak? You do realize that Russia was also at war with Japan, right?There may have been multiple reasons for Truman's decision, but bringing the war to a swift conclusion was paramount. It was a war crime, but it worked. It worked then and it worked in Douma.

Again, the weakness of your analogy, is that the USA was the greatest power in the world at the time. It could do anything it wanted, with zero repercussions. Assad can't do anything he wants, because there will be repercussions. Even for things that perhaps he didn't do.

Quote

Russia has signaled its interest in keeping a foothold in Syria. Assad knows that a chemical attack can be denied/obfuscated and he won't face serious consequences, because he enjoys Putin's strong support.

You're projecting what you would do. One canister with chlorine and sarin in it, and you wet your pants. I'm totally unconvinced that this would scare any rebel. Hundreds of canisters, maybe. But not one. The rebels would probably welcome hundreds of canisters raining down on them, because that would get Assad in some real trouble.

Quote

Assad bombed Douma indiscriminately. The fighters were, at least in their own minds, surely protecting the people there. So yes, if the people you're trying to defend can no longer be defended, the army retreats to a more strategically useful site. Which they did.

You keep contradicting yourself, Steve, and only to defend the corporate media narrative and dismiss any other plausible explanation or hypothesis.

How do you protect your people from a stronger enemy who bombs them indiscriminately, but as soon as one canister is dropped, that's it, we can't protect them anymore. They'd all be perfectly safe, if it weren't for that single blasted canister.

Quote

Except it plainly wasn't stupid. It worked pretty much as Assad might have envisioned. He gets Douma, the fighters go far away from Damascus. Neither Assad nor Russia face consequences that outweigh these gains. Assad lost a few buildings, with plenty of notice for evacuating people and matériel from them. Putin enjoys plausible deniability, though the operation wouldn't have been carried out without his assent. And a vigorous disinformation campaign reduces any risk of further damage by sowing confusion in the West.

Rob says we can't look into Putin's or Assad's heads, but you seem to do nothing else. It's assumption on assumption on assumption, heavily larded with what Steve would so in such and such situation.

Again, you might be right, but there's no way of knowing, and so we can't just go and pick the one theory that coincidentally is pushed and parotted by every corporate media outlet there is.

Quote

Do we really think Assad and Putin are more virtuous than Truman? Not that I'd claim Truman to be better, rather that they're probably comparable.

No, I don't think so, and neither do I think that the jihadists and American military-industrial complex are virtuous! So, why would you trust one over the other? Why would you choose one over the other? Because people in suits on TV who are great at reading teleprompters with a serious face and voice tell you so?

The missiles were fired, end of story. Maybe one day we'll hear what happened exactly.

Weak? You do realize that Russia was also at war with Japan, right?There may have been multiple reasons for Truman's decision, but bringing the war to a swift conclusion was paramount. It was a war crime, but it worked. It worked then and it worked in Douma.

Again, the weakness of your analogy, is that the USA was the greatest power in the world at the time. It could do anything it wanted, with zero repercussions. Assad can't do anything he wants, because there will be repercussions. Even for things that perhaps he didn't do.

There's plainly a vast difference in scale. Truman incinerated two cities, Assad gassed 40 women and children. But Douma is also vastly smaller than all of Japan. Accounting for relative scale, I'm not seeing the difference in tactics, risk, costs, and outcome. Both war crimes achieved predictable strategic aims, with small costs or risks to the perpetrators.

Quote

Quote

Russia has signaled its interest in keeping a foothold in Syria. Assad knows that a chemical attack can be denied/obfuscated and he won't face serious consequences, because he enjoys Putin's strong support.

You're projecting what you would do. One canister with chlorine and sarin in it, and you wet your pants. I'm totally unconvinced that this would scare any rebel. Hundreds of canisters, maybe. But not one. The rebels would probably welcome hundreds of canisters raining down on them, because that would get Assad in some real trouble.

Quote

Assad bombed Douma indiscriminately. The fighters were, at least in their own minds, surely protecting the people there. So yes, if the people you're trying to defend can no longer be defended, the army retreats to a more strategically useful site. Which they did.

You keep contradicting yourself, Steve, and only to defend the corporate media narrative and dismiss any other plausible explanation or hypothesis.

How do you protect your people from a stronger enemy who bombs them indiscriminately, but as soon as one canister is dropped, that's it, we can't protect them anymore. They'd all be perfectly safe, if it weren't for that single blasted canister.

They were surviving in basements and underground tunnels, beyond the direct destructive force of most artillery. But gas is a different thing.

No, the fighters wouldn't have been scared off by some toxic gas. But their women and children gassed, with no way to protect them? Of course they'd take the alternative offered to them.

Quote

Quote

Except it plainly wasn't stupid. It worked pretty much as Assad might have envisioned. He gets Douma, the fighters go far away from Damascus. Neither Assad nor Russia face consequences that outweigh these gains. Assad lost a few buildings, with plenty of notice for evacuating people and matériel from them. Putin enjoys plausible deniability, though the operation wouldn't have been carried out without his assent. And a vigorous disinformation campaign reduces any risk of further damage by sowing confusion in the West.

Rob says we can't look into Putin's or Assad's heads, but you seem to do nothing else. It's assumption on assumption on assumption, heavily larded with what Steve would so in such and such situation.

Again, you might be right, but there's no way of knowing, and so we can't just go and pick the one theory that coincidentally is pushed and parotted by every corporate media outlet there is.

The strategies of warfare weren't invented by Assad, Putin, or Truman. There's no psychology involved--strategy in warfare isn't about the psychology of the actors. There's nothing new under the sun here.

And no, it's not about being duped into a narrative pushed by corporate media. Information from multiple kinds of sources leads to the same general conclusion.

Quote

Quote

Do we really think Assad and Putin are more virtuous than Truman? Not that I'd claim Truman to be better, rather that they're probably comparable.

No, I don't think so, and neither do I think that the jihadists and American military-industrial complex are virtuous! So, why would you trust one over the other? Why would you choose one over the other? Because people in suits on TV who are great at reading teleprompters with a serious face and voice tell you so?

I really don't lend a lot of credence to people in suits on TV. Or to the pronouncements of Assad, Putin, Trump or May.And I certainly don't think any of these events merit a military response. The US needs to get out of Syria, ASAP. We can't help the people there by staying.

I really don't lend a lot of credence to people in suits on TV. Or to the pronouncements of Assad, Putin, Trump or May.And I certainly don't think any of these events merit a military response. The US needs to get out of Syria, ASAP. We can't help the people there by staying.

If this is really what you think, it shouldn't be difficult to be open to other explanations, instead of championing the one we see on the evening news that egged president Trump on to fire his toys.

In both cases, the one using WMDs faced no credible risk of being dragged before a war crimes tribunal. Why wouldn't they act as we know they did?

Hi Steve,

Now quite aside from historical documentation pointing to Truman using nuclear weapons against an already defeated Japan on the verge of surrender in order to, in this order:

1. Test the effectiveness of nuclear weapons against actual urban targets while they still had a chance.2. Sending a message to Stalin (this could arguably be swapped out for 1 above in order of import).3. A very distant third and mainly for public consumption in order to justify the bombing... spare US military casualties in the invasion of the Japanese homeland isles.

It's obviously true that Truman was never going to front a war crimes tribunal before or after he set up the UN on the basis of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal, or have the Whitehouse obliterated by missiles fired from an international military coalition parked off the coast in Chesapeake Bay.

On the other hand, with every White Helmet CW report Assad still faces the very real threat of a US military intervention destroying the SAA ending up with him dancing on the end of a rope like Sadam or copping a bayonet up the arse like Qadaffi.

On the other hand, with every White Helmet CW report Assad still faces the very real threat of a US military intervention destroying the SAA ending up with him dancing on the end of a rope like Sadam or copping a bayonet up the arse like Qadaffi.

It's abundantly clear that toppling Assad's regime would require direct confrontation with committed Russian forces. Nobody's going to do that over a relative handful of dead terrorists. Assad knows this.

I really don't lend a lot of credence to people in suits on TV. Or to the pronouncements of Assad, Putin, Trump or May.And I certainly don't think any of these events merit a military response. The US needs to get out of Syria, ASAP. We can't help the people there by staying.

If this is really what you think, it shouldn't be difficult to be open to other explanations, instead of championing the one we see on the evening news that egged president Trump on to fire his toys.

With all due respect, Neven, the "other explanations" involves a LOT of people all conspiring flawlessly :

There is something called "war crimes denial" and you and several other posters here are borderline there.

I know you as being respectful of facts and evidence and logic reasoning when it comes to AGW and Arctic Sea Ice, but your posts here ignoring the evidence and ignoring the reasoning, and instead following some conspiracy theory is not doing you any good.

So now, disbelief of the current western storyline borders on war crimes denial, does it ? I might remark that credulity for dubious sources borders on warmongering.

Some of the borderline warmongers here might ask themselves why people who are otherwise oh, so rational when it comes to climate change, are loath to credit exhortations to war. Perhaps they see something the borderline warmongers do not ?

So now, disbelief of the current western storyline borders on war crimes denial, does it ? I might remark that credulity for dubious sources borders on warmongering.

Some of the borderline warmongers here might ask themselves why people who are otherwise oh, so rational when it comes to climate change, are loath to credit exhortations to war. Perhaps they see something the borderline warmongers do not ?

But to deny that a chemical weapons attack occurred at all, we would need to believe that scores of people have been involved in a vast and elaborate hoax, executed without any flaws. They would have needed to coordinate without any problems through a war-torn area, to ensure civilians, doctors, aircraft-spotters, and people on social media all came out with the right story at the right time. Plus, they needed to plant a gas canister at the right spot, and produce fake videos to such a high quality they not only fool millions across the world, but also medical experts assessing the symptoms.

It's abundantly clear that toppling Assad's regime would require direct confrontation with committed Russian forces. Nobody's going to do that over a relative handful of dead terrorists. Assad knows this.

Hillary Clinton was committed to a no-fly zone which meant war with Russia in Syria.

The recent CW false flag was used by neoconservative hawks in the US admin to push for what they want, which is war with Russian forces in Syria.

The US hegemon is facing a decisive geopolitical defeat in Syria and the only way the US hawks can now enforce that hegemonic power is ... war with Russia in Syria.

What fantasy world are you living in where the recent technically illegal missile attack by FUKUS on Syria didn't risk a war with Russia in Syria?

Do you have any idea of what is at stake here and how perilously close we are to war with Russia?

Or are you happy to argue without any logic just to make your point that Assad has some reason for using CW? No matter how ludicrous that sounds out here in the real world? No matter that all you're doing is upholding horrifically dangerous war propaganda?

The opposition in Douma was organised enough to build what appears to be an extensive and well defended tunnel network and hold out for half a decade against the SAA while lobbing mortars into downtown Damascus, with help from the US and its allies of course.

What makes you think organising a false flag would be too difficult for them?

You just made Steve's point that Assad knew he could get away with a CW attack.

Who is that in reply to? And what's your argument?

If me then you're saying that ... Assad knows he can get away with pointlessly using CW because ... all he risks is his death and the destruction of his nation state when the US finally does get around to wiping out the relatively limited Russian military presence in Syria?

If me then you're saying that ... Assad knows he can get away with pointlessly using CW because ... all he risks is his death and the destruction of his nation state when the US finally does get around to wiping out the relatively limited Russian military presence in Syria?

Do you people even think before posting?

Man, you are annoying.You did not propose ANY reasonable argument to ANY of the 6 issues I pointed out.Let's just take ONE : how did somebody smuggle 34 corpses into that house without being noticed ?

And why don't you STOP for a second, and explain why you so aggressively want to show that Assad did not do this, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that he did ?

You mean a hoax in the sense that nobody actually died? No, I don't think that. As for who did it, I'm not sure yet. I'll give you my thoughts on your list, even though they're absolutely worthless.

I think my 6 points are spot-on, but thank you.What you are suggesting is that YES somebody died.That means there WAS a chemical attack, but you are not sure who caused it.So, if there WAS a chemical attack, and it was NOT Assad, then it must have been somebody else.The evidence we have is that there was a cylinder on the roof of that house, and 34 corpses were found there.So are you now suggesting that somebody put that cylinder there, opened the valve, and the people inside died ? If not, then WHAT is the scenario that makes you believe that that cylinder was NOT dropped from the sky ?

Well I'm sorry Rob, but arguing with a professional philosopher can be annoying especially when you can't string a cogent argument together.

Quote

You did not propose ANY reasonable argument to ANY of the 6 issues I pointed out.

Really?

Apart of course from the argument concerning why you think a large militia org funded by US/NATO and the gulf states couldn't put a quick false flag together. They can build large tunnel networks using huge amounts of human labour with munitions factories and hospitals etc to support an armed insurgency under siege for over half a decade etc but would be incapable of putting together a quick stage production... Can you recognise a reasonable argument when it's in print in front of your face and you're reading it?

Quote

Let's just take ONE : how did somebody smuggle 34 corpses into that house without being noticed ?

Dunno... ummmm.... get a security team to secure the place? You'll need a bus driver to bus the actors in. Makeup and camera crew, the White Helmets have very a decent production crew so someones probably got a mate they can call a favour in.

Catering! Always important. And a morgue truck of course.

Cameras ... and .... ACTION!

Quote

And why don't you STOP for a second, and explain why you so aggressively want to show that Assad did not do this, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that he did ?

Because your notion of 'overwhelming evidence' is somewhat lacking. I see evidence of an obvious flase flag and I see people like you who really should have the critical faculties to go beyond simple regurgitation of what is obviously war propaganda to suit US led military intervention in the Middle East.

And it's fun tearing your blindingly stupid logic apart, you're arguments would barely pass muster in first year undergrad cultural studies here. But I think that's largely a function of just how debased our governments and their corporate media mouthpieces have become in trying to parse the insanity that's coming out of the last 3 US admins as they prosecute this neverending war on terror.

How do you explain to the hoi polloi that you're just going to kill and keep killing to maintain planetary full spectrum dominance? Like 21st C Nazis and F**K democracy and the rule of law.

I'll give you my thoughts on your list, even though they're absolutely worthless.

I think my 6 points are spot-on, but thank you.

My thoughts (plural) are worthless, not your list (singular).

Quote

What you are suggesting is that YES somebody died.That means there WAS a chemical attack, but you are not sure who caused it.So, if there WAS a chemical attack, and it was NOT Assad, then it must have been somebody else.

Yes, a rebel faction and/or western intelligence.

Quote

The evidence we have is that there was a cylinder on the roof of that house, and 34 corpses were found there.So are you now suggesting that somebody put that cylinder there, opened the valve, and the people inside died ?

That's a possibility. It's also possible that the people were killed elsewhere with chemicals, and then put into the house.

Quote

If not, then WHAT is the scenario that makes you believe that that cylinder was NOT dropped from the sky ?

I don't believe anything. I just don't like how the 'truth' is immediately known, gets spread via social media, 'picked up' by corporate/mainstream news media, resulting in missiles worth 100-200 millions of USD being fired, potentially killing more innocent people. That's not how a trial should work. You don't shoot from the hip, ask questions later.

With all due respect, Neven, the "other explanations" involves a LOT of people all conspiring flawlessly :

1) Somebody placing a cylinder in a hole on the roof of the house in question, and

That's easy.

I've also been wondering how it works exactly with a canister dropped from a certain height, punching a hole in a concrete roof (but not falling through), ending up perfectly above the hole with the valve pointing down. Was the gas released immediately or did it seep out, making its way through the building?

Quote

2) Somebody to place 34 bodies (where did they get the bodies?) in that house, without anyone noticing, and

That's more difficult, but not impossible to do. It's a war zone, not like thousands of people are living in that street.

Quote

3) put foam on their mouths to make it look like a chemical attack, and

If you've brought the bodies in from elsewhere, you might have poisoned them elsewhere as well.

Have the bodies already been identified? I think it was Terry who said that certain ethnic groups have been used by jihadists as hostages/shields.

Quote

4) aircraft spotters to post on Sentry Syria to record 30 minutes ahead of time to report Hip helicopters to head towards Douma, and

It's enough to just say 'aircraft spotters saw this and that'. Why in this day and age, when people film BUK transporters from their apartments, isn't there any footage of said helicopters? Or is there and I haven't seen it?

If the neighbour had said the opposite, would it have been reported by CBS? What do other neighbours say?

Back in the Bush days, I was working for a Dutch news agency. At some point one of those terrorist leaders in the deck of cards had allegedly been bombed by a US stealth fighter. The Pentagon showed footage of the bombing and of the house that was destroyed, and so everybody dutifully reported. But there was footage of the neighbours as well, who said American soldiers had come at night and detonated the empty building. I said to the editor: Why don't you put this in the segment, sounds very newsworthy to me. The editor replied: No time, and besides, what do those guys know that the Pentagon and CNN don't?

Quote

There is something called "war crimes denial" and you and several other posters here are borderline there.

You do the exact same thing in the US intervention thread.

Quote

I know you as being respectful of facts and evidence and logic reasoning when it comes to AGW and Arctic Sea Ice, but your posts here ignoring the evidence and ignoring the reasoning, and instead following some conspiracy theory is not doing you any good.

AGW and Arctic sea ice loss are based on science, I can look at data myself, look at satellite imagery, read papers, attend conferences, interview scientists. This stuff is much more murky and prone to bias distortion due to massive propaganda from all directions.

It can be interesting to treat this as some murder mystery that needs be solved, but in the end, the details don't matter that much (even though they're horrific). What this is all about, is about groups of people doing whatever they can to increase their piece of the pie of concentrated wealth, either because they own some part of it, or because they get rewarded for making it bigger. We are not part of these groups (although we are unwittingly and unwantingly complicit in their actions), but they will make us think we are by dividing us.

So, how do we not get caught up in the false choice between monsters like Putin/Assad and US Empire?

Let's just take ONE : how did somebody smuggle 34 corpses into that house without being noticed ?

Dunno... ummmm.... get a security team to secure the place? You'll need a bus driver to bus the actors in. Makeup and camera crew, the White Helmets have very a decent production crew so someones probably got a mate they can call a favour in.

Catering! Always important. And a morgue truck of course.

Cameras ... and .... ACTION!

Well, this is a common enough conspiracy theory about the attack. It's been debunked before:

Images purportedly proving that the White Helmets staged a chemical attack in Syria are actually stills from a movie set.A volunteer group of search and rescue workers called the Syria Civil Defense group — better known as the White Helmets — is frequently subjected to unfounded conspiracy theories, such as the claim that the group “stages” various acts of violence using “crisis actors.”

These accusations were superficially bolstered by a set of images which purportedly showed the group staging a chemical attack in Douma, Syria in April 2018.. . .Although these images do feature actors, they are not of the “crisis” variety. These photographs were taken on the set of the Syrian movie “فيلم رجل الثورة” or Revolution Man, and they have been on the Internet since at least 24 February 2018 (more than a month before the alleged chemical attack in Douma) when they were posted to the movie’s Facebook page.

The belief that the White Helmets or similar groups are staging chemical attacks in Syria is not one exclusively held by conspiracy theorists or the uninformed. It is parroting Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s line that crisis actors were used to stage a terrorist attack in April 2017 and claims that a photograph of a young child in the aftermath of an airstrike on Aleppo had been forged. Assad’s regime also denied using chemical weapons in Douma. "

Ortiz is impressive. I hope she survives. Her closer was very good: "If we don't know who we are killing, we will keep killing them, but if we investigate the ones we are killing we would never allow any more death."

In the first 5 minutes, we see two clips of a few seconds each from John Kerry as secretary of state on CSPAN. So that must have been somewhere beteen 2013 and 2017. Dore does not say when, nor does he explain what his point is with these clips.

Then at 5:00 he talks about Youtube demonetizing his video channel, but it's not clear if his channel was actually demonetized or not. Was it ? If so, when ? and since I still get an ad before I can watch the crap that Dore is telling, apparently his channel is currently NOT demonetized.

Then he shows that CNN has found that YouTube has run ads for Neo-Nazi groups and such.But somehow he believes that that CNN article applies to Dore's channel ?Weird.

It gets REALLY weird at about 11 min, when he starts to defend Alex Jones' infowars.com for promoting a "mainstream" position.

Overall, it is a smearing piece against CNN.

Neven, next time, if you think a piece that CNN does is not good journalism, just show the piece. Not something filtered through Dore's obfuscation voice.

With all due respect, Neven, the "other explanations" involves a LOT of people all conspiring flawlessly :

1) Somebody placing a cylinder in a hole on the roof of the house in question, and

That's easy.

I've also been wondering how it works exactly with a canister dropped from a certain height, punching a hole in a concrete roof (but not falling through), ending up perfectly above the hole with the valve pointing down. Was the gas released immediately or did it seep out, making its way through the building?

It is pretty plausible that the cylinder knocked a hole in the concrete, but did not go through. In this picture, you can see that at least one piece of rebar did not break :

In that same segment, TV4 also interviews an eye witness.However, my Swedish is not what it should be, so I don't know what he is saying.Something about gas coming out of the house ?

Regarding the cylinder "ending up perfectly above the hole with the valve pointing down. " that may very well be a simple case of being very unfortunate. There may be other cylinders thrown but they did not get the attention because they did not cause any deaths. (The cylinder on the bed comes to mind).

Quote

Quote

2) Somebody to place 34 bodies (where did they get the bodies?) in that house, without anyone noticing, and

That's more difficult, but not impossible to do. It's a war zone, not like thousands of people are living in that street.

Quote

3) put foam on their mouths to make it look like a chemical attack, and

If you've brought the bodies in from elsewhere, you might have poisoned them elsewhere as well.

Wow. So you don't have a problem with the conspiracy theory that some people in the opposition will actually gas 34 people, then bring them to a house, where they display them, all the time coordinating with all the other groups in a monumental staging event, but you DO have a problem with the straightforward theory that Assad military tossed that cylinder out of a helicopter. Even though Assad did that many, many times before.

Quote

Have the bodies already been identified? I think it was Terry who said that certain ethnic groups have been used by jihadists as hostages/shields.

Either way, I hope that the OPCW can have access to these bodies.Not to mention the next of kin.

Quote

Quote

4) aircraft spotters to post on Sentry Syria to record 30 minutes ahead of time to report Hip helicopters to head towards Douma, and

It's enough to just say 'aircraft spotters saw this and that'. Why in this day and age, when people film BUK transporters from their apartments, isn't there any footage of said helicopters? Or is there and I haven't seen it?

Any footage of any aircraft would be a dead give-away of the location of the spotters. Or do you think Syrian/Russian intelligence cannot do geo-location like Bellingcat does ?And if they would only show the helicopter without surrounding, nobody could do geo-location, so it does not add any information to simply reporting the helicopters left and in which direction they headed.

The crucial part is of course that reported this 30 min BEFORE the attack, so if they were not telling the truth they must have been part of the conspiracy that you seem to promote.

The number of victims vary wildly. How reliable is this? The Fisk article

Something seems to be cut-off here in your response.Point is, that is 500 people reported to WHO medical facilities with “signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals”, then 500 people must be part of your conspiracy theory, or WHO itself is lying, so WHO must be part of the conspiracy.

If the neighbour had said the opposite, would it have been reported by CBS? What do other neighbours say?

There is no reason to assume that CBS would not report it if the neighbors they interviewed would have said anything else than what they did.Or is CBS now also part of your conspiracy theory ?

Quote

Back in the Bush days, I was working for a Dutch news agency. At some point one of those terrorist leaders in the deck of cards had allegedly been bombed by a US stealth fighter. The Pentagon showed footage of the bombing and of the house that was destroyed, and so everybody dutifully reported. But there was footage of the neighbours as well, who said American soldiers had come at night and detonated the empty building. I said to the editor: Why don't you put this in the segment, sounds very newsworthy to me. The editor replied: No time, and besides, what do those guys know that the Pentagon and CNN don't?

I don't know the specifics here, but it seems rather unlikely to me that American soldiers would be on the ground blowing up a building when they can simple do that from the air. And they even showed the footage of them doing just that.

So the eye witness account does not make sense in this case.

Quote

Quote

There is something called "war crimes denial" and you and several other posters here are borderline there.

You do the exact same thing in the US intervention thread.

That is a low-blow. And not true.In the US intervention thread some posted statements without any evidence. And I called them out.In this thread there is evidence, but you don't want to accept the statements that come with it.

So it is the OPPOSITE here, not "the exact same" thing, as to what happened in the US intervention thread.

I am very easily convinced by evidence, and I am always highly skeptical if there is no evidence. I guess it's the scientist in me.

Quote

Quote

I know you as being respectful of facts and evidence and logic reasoning when it comes to AGW and Arctic Sea Ice, but your posts here ignoring the evidence and ignoring the reasoning, and instead following some conspiracy theory is not doing you any good.

AGW and Arctic sea ice loss are based on science, I can look at data myself, look at satellite imagery, read papers, attend conferences, interview scientists. This stuff is much more murky and prone to bias distortion due to massive propaganda from all directions.

It can be interesting to treat this as some murder mystery that needs be solved, but in the end, the details don't matter that much (even though they're horrific). What this is all about, is about groups of people doing whatever they can to increase their piece of the pie of concentrated wealth, either because they own some part of it, or because they get rewarded for making it bigger. We are not part of these groups (although we are unwittingly and unwantingly complicit in their actions), but they will make us think we are by dividing us.

So, how do we not get caught up in the false choice between monsters like Putin/Assad and US Empire?

To know who the monsters are, follow the evidence. Not some far-out conspiracy theory. Please.

Demonetizing a Youtube video mean rendering it ineligible for ad display (and revenue.) Dore gets screwed every day, and so do a whole buncha others.

You know, screw Youtube too. Owned by google. Crowdfund and bittorrent instead, until they shut down your payment channels (like wikileaks) and indict you, and then take the funding and distribution underground.They cant shut down tor or I2P or all the rest, lil late for that.

I suspect the next step against wikileaks will be to seize wikileaks domain names, at which point they will be entirely onion based,. Assange musta seen this coming, lets hope he yet has competent help to execute the shift, since he is irendered incommunicado by craven new Eucador admin.

Re:"But somehow he believes that that CNN article applies to Dore's channel ?"

It names him. As one might have found if one had watched and listened to the show to completion.

Jimmy took the trouble to read it out loud while displaying it on the screen.

Yeah. Sorry, but at which point did Dore reference the source of the CNN piece he was attacking ?I can't stand Dore for more than 5 min, so my 12 min into the video was a record, and it certainly was not in these first 12 minutes.

In GOOD reporting of an attack piece the FIRST thing you do is GIVE A REFERENCE !

Which makes Dore's piece NOT good journalism, by definition.

Quote

Ads also appeared on The Jimmy Dore Show channel, a far-left YouTube channel that peddles conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes."

OK. So who is in this conspiracy theory so far ? We have :- The White Helmets,- 500 locals,- local medical staff,- aircraft spotters,- the WHO,- CBS,- Swedish channel 4,

Did I forget anyone ? How about the CIA and MI6 ? I'm sure they will feel left-out if your don't include them in your ever less likely conspiracy theory that the Douma chemical attack was a hoax or a false flag attack (by the way, did you guys make your mind up which one it was : A hoax or false flag ?). Can't be both.

OK. So who is in this conspiracy theory so far ? We have :- The White Helmets,- 500 locals,- local medical staff,- aircraft spotters,- the WHO,- CBS,- Swedish channel 4,

Did I forget anyone ? How about the CIA and MI6 ? I'm sure they will feel left-out if your don't include them in your ever less likely conspiracy theory that the Douma chemical attack was a hoax or a false flag attack (by the way, did you guys make your mind up which one it was : A hoax or false flag ?). Can't be both.

It's a much more extensive that that, you have just scratched the surface.

Logged

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer

I posted this in another thread, but now see that the Douma attack is discussed here, so crosspost:

German public TV ZDF says the Douma attack was staged by the jihadists."The scene of the attack, which allegedly took place on April 7, was in fact the “command post” of a local Islamist group, the reporter said, citing the witnesses he was able to speak to at the refugee camp.... according to the locals, the militants brought canisters containing chlorine to the area and “actually waited for the Syrian Air Force to bomb the place, which was of particular interest for them.”

As the Syrian forces eventually struck the place, which was apparently a high-priority military target, the chlorine canisters exploded. The locals also told Gack that it is not the first such provocation in Douma that was staged by the militants.

Review (updated 4/21)* Unknown day before April 7: damage probably caused by something other than the cylinder (it's not there yet)* Midnight April 7/8, just after attack: cylinder seemingly there now* Sometime April 8: cylinder there, unseen photos* App. 1 pm April 8 or 9: video of cylinder there (seen frame)* App. 3 pm April 9: Russian investigators visit, apparently find it not there (can we have video for that part?)* 7:02 pm April 9 (presumed): video of cylinder there, but in a different position, rotated and angled differently* Thereafter: so far it appears to have stayed in the second position

Wow. So you don't have a problem with the conspiracy theory that some people in the opposition will actually gas 34 people, then bring them to a house, where they display them, all the time coordinating with all the other groups in a monumental staging event, but you DO have a problem with the straightforward theory that Assad military tossed that cylinder out of a helicopter. Even though Assad did that many, many times before.

I have a problem with the 'judicial process', where people or entities are convicted via social media and corporate media (which has a clear war bias), and then missiles to the worth of 150-200 million USD are fired off, possibly causing further escalations that the world can't afford.

Quote

The crucial part is of course that reported this 30 min BEFORE the attack, so if they were not telling the truth they must have been part of the conspiracy that you seem to promote.

Look, I'm not promoting any particular conspiracy theory, like you seem to be. I'm just trying to make clear that things can be explained in different ways, dots can be connected in different ways, narratives can be shaped in different ways. Especially if there's a combination of little information and lots of bias. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of bad people who have an interest in this, and all they want, is for enough of the masses to rally behind them, so they can keep doing what they're doing.

If you're fine with how this all worked out, without any due process, and think there's enough of a basis to bomb another country (breaking international laws along the way), by an idiot at the trigger like Donald Trump no less, you're creating precedents for even worse stuff along the way.

What if it turns out it was all staged by Islamist extremists? How would you feel about all these conversations? And about the journalism involved?

If you're fine with how this all worked out, without any due process, and think there's enough of a basis to bomb another country (breaking international laws along the way), by an idiot at the trigger like Donald Trump no less, you're creating precedents for even worse stuff along the way.

I don't think Rob or anyone else here is fine with how this all worked out. It's possible to both analyze evidence as it's presented AND to disagree with the response of the US, UK and France.

As I have shown before, the standard position of the establishment left has been to acquire further information. The standard position of the far left and the far right is for non-intervention. It is my opinion that you have a poor understanding of US politics and media because your exposure is largely filtered through the selective far left lens of Jimmy Dore. Again, I'm not passing judgment on his views. I'm simply saying that you are not going to get an accurate representation of US politics and media by only watching his show.

I'm simply saying that you are not going to get an accurate representation of US politics and media by only watching his show.

So....you're saying that someone should watch not only that segment of media that agrees with his/her own position, but he/she should also watch some "main stream media" as well as "far right media" in order to see what is really out there.

What a great idea. Actually SEE all angles of the issue before jumping in....and NOT trusting someone to tell you what "the other side" is really saying, but instead....actually view it yourself.

BIAS is a BIG ISSUE....whether we are talking about politics, economics, or the style of house you like. We ALL have biases (Go Ducks!). But it is CRITICAL to understand that..... and not get swallowed by our bias.BIAS: a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned.

"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

I don't think Rob or anyone else here is fine with how this all worked out. It's possible to both analyze evidence as it's presented AND to disagree with the response of the US, UK and France.

Fair enough, but I think you should let Rob speak for himself. There are plenty of people who are convinced that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack, and thus anything goes. I don't agree with the argument, but one can make it.

To go through the attack itself is sort of interesting as a mystery that needs to be solved, but we could be doing that every day because this kind of atrocities happen every day, all around the world. Personally, I'm more interested in how it fits in the bigger picture of things. It's interesting to talk about how much ice melted in the Bering Sea Okhotsk today, but in the end it's AGW we want to know about.

Quote

As I have shown before, the standard position of the establishment left has been to acquire further information. The standard position of the far left and the far right is for non-intervention.

This is all a bit vague, and sounds a bit like lefty-bashing (by equating them with nazi sympathisers). Is the establishment left actually left, or only when it comes to identity politics? And of course, the corporate media is quite clearly pushing for war, as it always has.

Quote

It is my opinion that you have a poor understanding of US politics and media because your exposure is largely filtered through the selective far left lens of Jimmy Dore. Again, I'm not passing judgment on his views. I'm simply saying that you are not going to get an accurate representation of US politics and media by only watching his show.

Jimmy Dore is maybe 10-20% of that I watch, and I read quite a bit as well. I wouldn't call him far left. He's not a communist or something. Unless demanding universal health care, free college, a livable wage, ending the wars, regulating Wall Street, is 'far left'. I believe that in the US 'far left' is used pejoratively, which is why politics has shifted so far to the right.

Maybe I have a poor understanding of US politics and media, but as an outsider I might have a better perspective on conditioned memes that Americans are unaware of (exceptionalism, militarism, what actually constitutes right and (far) left). Don't forget that I have been indoctrinated all my life with American cultural imperialism.